Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds value on top: it discloses that include_contacts is slower, that output is labelled per Location, and that an unreachable Location is reported as skipped rather than failing — useful partial-failure semantics. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core operation and the key filter are front-loaded, and each subsequent clause carries distinct information (status options, contact tradeoff, location resolution). Minor markup noise from literal backticks around 'location' and 'all' slightly hurts readability but does not bloat the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the location edge cases are well-covered. But with 7 parameters and 0% schema descriptions, leaving portfolio, shortname, property_id, and property_ids unexplained is a meaningful gap for a tool whose callers must pick among overlapping scoping parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it covers status (including the enum values 'Current' | 'Past' | 'All' that the schema lacks), include_contacts, and location in detail. Four parameters — portfolio, shortname, property_id, property_ids — are left entirely undocumented, and their relationship to each other and to location is ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'List tenants for a property or portfolio.' An agent understands the operation immediately. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_tenant (singular lookup) or list_prospects, so routing between the two list/lookup tools is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Offers real usage guidance for filters — status values, the include_contacts performance tradeoff, and location 'all' vs blank semantics. However, it never states when to choose this over get_tenant or list_prospects, nor whether property_id/property_ids/portfolio/location are mutually exclusive, leaving tool selection and parameter combination to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.